If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You have to login or register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

So at the end of the day....you just don't like the guy. And you think the way to deal with that is to throw a crybaby tantrum calling the guy all kinds of disparaging names and pretending like you're some kind of authority on presidential decorum.

Where do you get this 'crybaby tantrum' stuff from? Where you do see me getting hysterical? All I'm doing is making arguments and asking to hear your side.

Sure, he won, have at it. Doesn't mean I have to like the guy or approve of him. And hey, if I think he's worthy of mockery and a shit president I'm going to make fun of him and call him a shit president. And you can go on praising him and saying he's great for all i care.

The thing I am most impressed by is that he hasn't bent to media or ctrl-left social justice pressure. Just about all Republicans would, except perhaps one like Cruz. But even then I'm so impressed by this that even though I voted for Cruz over Trump, I think Trump is doing better than Cruz would.

My #2 is North Korea. Watching this dance play out piece by piece has been awesome. I have been super impressed with his strategy and all the tactics he has been using to make that strategy work. We're going to look back at this as Trump literally being the man who solved the North Korea problem. Several months back I was saying that with some hesitance, but given how much real movement on the ground there has been so far, I say it with full confidence now.

ISIS is an easy #3. It went from gangbusters under Obama to virtually finished after a year of Trump allowing Mattis to do what Mattis wants to do.

His attention to rational expectations is #4. Given how much I care about this, it's strange that it's only #4, but that shows how great the ones above it are. Rational expectations is one of the most important concepts in economics, and it is my estimation that Trump understands it better than most economists. Essentially Trump is making the world believe the future will be better, which makes the people behave like the future will be better, which means that current behavior is better since people adjust for future expectations in current behavior, which is what ends up making the future better.

#5 is the many regulation cuts behind the scenes. After he dutifully morning tweets out something that gets the media and bobbleheads to reeeeeeee, he then usually cuts restrictions on hardworking people behind the scenes, and only those who pay attention to things that matter notice.

Where do you get this 'crybaby tantrum' stuff from? Where you do see me getting hysterical? All I'm doing is making arguments and asking to hear your side.

Sure, he won, have at it. Doesn't mean I have to like the guy or approve of him. And hey, if I think he's worthy of mockery and a shit president I'm going to make fun of him and call him a shit president. And you can go on praising him and saying he's great for all i care.

And finally, he wants to try to put on a front of being reasonable and wanting to have an actual conversation. However, as we can see from his history, this is the last thing that he wants. Any point that is brought up will not be understood in the context of reason and personal responsibility. It will all be about the victim points tally and how people feel, both of which are useless in the realm of people who actually get shit done.

They are zombies, and there is no cure.

It is hilarious how well that describes you. Any point that you are being poked on immediately turns either into ad-hominem or you go off on non-sequitur's. This response is a great example. He asked a super straight forward question that even I could answer, and yet you choose to go off on this tirade, because it's much easier than answering the question. Your mind is the path of least resistance exemplified.

On the record growth of asset prices, that isn't all Trump and it's mostly not Obama like people think. That's mostly about the Fed BUT the record being as high and lengthy as it is probably depends on Trump. If Clinton had won, asset prices would probably still be up (because Fed) and if a generic GOPer won they probably would be up more than with Clinton. It's the Trump effect IMO that has made the growth so amazingly consistent. That's his true skin-in-the-game learning of what rational expectations really means that many economists stuck in only the mind-space have forgotten. I remember telling my professor a year ago that asset prices will continue to go up in a stable and remarkable way because of Trump's understanding and communication of expectations.

The thing I am most impressed by is that he hasn't bent to media or ctrl-left social justice pressure. Just about all Republicans would, except perhaps one like Cruz. But even then I'm so impressed by this that even though I voted for Cruz over Trump, I think Trump is doing better than Cruz would.

My #2 is North Korea. Watching this dance play out piece by piece has been awesome. I have been super impressed with his strategy and all the tactics he has been using to make that strategy work. We're going to look back at this as Trump literally being the man who solved the North Korea problem. Several months back I was saying that with some hesitance, but given how much real movement on the ground there has been so far, I say it with full confidence now.

ISIS is an easy #3. It went from gangbusters under Obama to virtually finished after a year of Trump allowing Mattis to do what Mattis wants to do.

His attention to rational expectations is #4. Given how much I care about this, it's strange that it's only #4, but that shows how great the ones above it are. Rational expectations is one of the most important concepts in economics, and it is my estimation that Trump understands it better than most economists. Essentially Trump is making the world believe the future will be better, which makes the people behave like the future will be better, which means that current behavior is better since people adjust for future expectations in current behavior, which is what ends up making the future better.

#5 is the many regulation cuts behind the scenes. After he dutifully morning tweets out something that gets the media and bobbleheads to reeeeeeee, he then usually cuts restrictions on hardworking people behind the scenes, and only those who pay attention to things that matter notice.

I'll stop here.

thanks Wuf. I don't have time to digest this right now but I'll come back to it later.

It is hilarious how well that describes you. Any point that you are being poked on immediately turns either into ad-hominem or you go off on non-sequitur's. This response is a great example. He asked a super straight forward question that even I could answer, and yet you choose to go off on this tirade, because it's much easier than answering the question. Your mind is the path of least resistance exemplified.

Geez how did you actually get this far? I generally skip to the next post as soon as he goes off topic.

About asset prices, it is not a good idea to use them as evidence for or against something. That's one of the fatal flaws in economic logic called "reasoning from a price change." You want to reason from an information change and then interpret the price change through that. Stocks today can be up for all sorts of different reasons. What we want to do is say "what new information has there been and what effect could that have" and then look at stock prices through that lens. What we don't want to say is "stocks are up therefore Trump must be doing something right."

I have a friend who lives in a top 10 major US city who complained to me about her boyfriend of a few years the other day and his attitude towards homeless people. She said that he lacked compassion because he told her not to give them money. He had also said that he hated how there were so many homeless people in the area and that it wasn't like that 10 years ago. She was reconsidering the relationship over this.

She's in her late 20s, and he's in his early 40s. She recently moved from a fairly rural area to live with him.

So my friend ends up giving this homeless man a few dollars because she decided she wouldn't listen to the man she's with. Naturally, this homeless dude starts following her asking for more. It freaked her the fuck out.

She goes to her boyfriend and was a bit shaken over the experience. He said I told you so. They had an argument.

Her point was that she wanted to help people, so she wanted to give the guy money. His point was that she was hurting the guy in the long run by giving him money and hurting herself by making herself a target. She was literally helping no one.

The only reason she wanted to do that was to feel good about herself and to virtue signal about how good of a person she was. Not surprisingly, the story became all about how she's a victim of her boyfriend being an asshole and having no compassion for people.

When she asked me for my advice, I told her that her boyfriend had more compassion for the homeless than she did and that she was only doing what she was doing for selfish reasons without actually thinking about what she was doing.

The fundamental ailment of the left is that they have been convinced that they are helpless pieces of shit. This is the source of making being weak or being a victim into a virtue, and it's the source of why they compete over who can be the biggest helpless pussy. It's also why they hate anyone who is not a helpless piece of shit.

On the story, that is a picturesque example of the counterintuitive nature of economic behavior. An economist I read once told a story about a homeless dude (like 19 yr old or something) who just showed up near his home and wanted money so he could leave. He was going to give him some money but then his wife (the non-economist of all people) reminded him the incentives that causes, where the dude would become less likely to leave if he was given money to leave.

On your interpretation of why, I think I disagree. The girl in your situation could be very compassionate. Compassion isn't smart. Compassion can be blind and ruthless. A mother bear ripping you to shreds because you accidentally came too close to her cubs is acting compassionately towards her cubs after all. Anyways, the girl in your story's problem, in my estimation, is allowing compassion to rule. It ruled so much that she didn't THINK. She only felt. And because she didn't do enough thinking and did too much feeling, she caused several serious problems for herself. It can also be the type of selfish virtue signalling feeling you mentioned too.

To the idea that the man was the one with more compassion, I don't know. It looks to me like he simply thought things through.

About asset prices, it is not a good idea to use them as evidence for or against something. That's one of the fatal flaws in economic logic called "reasoning from a price change." You want to reason from an information change and then interpret the price change through that. Stocks today can be up for all sorts of different reasons. What we want to do is say "what new information has there been and what effect could that have" and then look at stock prices through that lens. What we don't want to say is "stocks are up therefore Trump must be doing something right."

Is there an economic model that predicts, even retrospectively, what the stock market will do?

What I mean is if you plug into this model variables a through z, things like 'a =reducing regulations', or 'b =cutting taxes' , etc., can that model predict with some sort of accuracy how these things affect the stock market?

So the people who have money invested in the stock market took his election as evidence that stocks would go up, and bought more stocks. Is that about the gist of it?

Yes, but the question is more about why that is the gist of it.

Stock prices represent the economy as a whole very closely. The distinction between Wall Street and Main Street that is often talked about isn't quite real. For example, if a Trump election causes a rally in Walmart stock prices, that rally is because investors think that demand for Walmart goods will go up, and that demand is about the same as what pushes up Joe and Sally's Corner Grocer too.

There are a lot of caveats to this, but that scenario is the usual and general one.

Is there an economic model that predicts, even retrospectively, what the stock market will do?

What I mean is if you plug into this model variables a through z, things like 'a =reducing regulations', or 'b =cutting taxes' , etc., can that model predict with some sort of accuracy how these things affect the stock market?

Nope. Stocks behave like a random walk. Rational expectations says current perceptions adjust for future expectations. The efficient market hypothesis says that stock prices adjust for all available information. Nobody can predict stock values, probably because not all possible new information can be adjusted for. Economists talk like the experimental data is solid on this. It would be with things like if test subjects know the value of a stock they hold will be less tomorrow, they sell today at a higher price. Probably the reason we can't predict prices is because prices change on information instead of changing on change in price, if that makes sense. And we can't fully model all the information that will be relevant a minute or a day or a month from now, so we can't predict stock prices.

Nope. Stocks behave like a random walk. Rational expectations says current perceptions adjust for future expectations. The efficient market hypothesis says that stock prices adjust for all available information. Nobody can predict stock values, probably because not all possible new information can be adjusted for. Economists talk like the experimental data is solid on this. It would be with things like if test subjects know the value of a stock they hold will be less tomorrow, they sell today at a higher price. Probably the reason we can't predict prices is because prices change on information instead of changing on change in price, if that makes sense. And we can't fully model all the information that will be relevant a minute or a day or a month from now, so we can't predict stock prices.

That's interesting. Do all of these models assume people behave rationally then, but with varying degrees of information?

a) Even if you devised the perfect model, there isn't enough information to feed into the model to allow it to make predictions. I.e., too much of the relevant input to the model is unknown or unknowable.

b) Even if you had all the relevant input, the number of variables and their interactions mean you would need a computer (literally) the size of the moon to do the calcs.

That's interesting. Do all of these models assume people behave rationally then, but with varying degrees of information?

"Rational" is acting according to subjective preferences. So, for the most part, yes. I say "for the most part" because there is some small movement in economics against this idea. And I don't really understand why. The best I have gathered from discussions with some professors is that the "irrationalist" portion emerges in part from redefining things. So what Richard Thaler would call "irrational", traditional Chicago economists like Gary Becker would call "rational."

But yes, we assume the aggregation of investors want more money rather than less money and that they act according to how they perceive to do that.

I almost completely disagree with the "irrationalist" approach. It isn't even economics per se. It started out of psychology. Psychology is fine, but it's not the same as economics. I asked one of my profs (the best one I've had) what the Gary Becker (champion of rationalism) type would think of the Richard Thaler (champion of irrationalism) views, and he said Becker would say something along the lines of how in some technical way the irrationalists might be right but even so it wouldn't change any of the modeling since the modeling attempts to incorporate all possible preferences.

Anyways, the girl in your story's problem, in my estimation, is allowing compassion to rule. It ruled so much that she didn't THINK. She only felt. And because she didn't do enough thinking and did too much feeling, she caused several serious problems for herself. It can also be the type of selfish virtue signalling feeling you mentioned too.

To this, my argument is that excessive compassion (to the point of drastically overriding reason and the ablity to be effective) of this type is the result of narcissism, etc., but we're mostly in agreement here.

Didn't Tversky and Khaneman basically blow up some economic ideas with research in psychology? I don't remember the details, but I thought it had to do with people not being able to be rational even if they tried (or something like that). Something about them making poor decisions about risk/reward depending on how the question was framed.

I could have that wrong though. It might be someone else or something else.

a) Even if you devised the perfect model, there isn't enough information to feed into the model to allow it to make predictions. I.e., too much of the relevant input to the model is unknown or unknowable.

b) Even if you had all the relevant input, the number of variables and their interactions mean you would need a computer (literally) the size of the moon to do the calcs.

Yeah that's basically right. Because of this, there is debate among economists about what economics even should be about. For example, there is a big econometrician movement. I don't like it much because it attempts to do what you pointed out can't be done. Interesting to note, Nassim Taleb often discusses how econometricians gets their statistics wrong in the first place. So that's, like, a double negative. I think econometrics is very overused. On the econometric paper I replicated for a class, I felt like the "results" boiled down to data dredging and perhaps overfitting and that the conclusion was easily wrong because of unknown confounding variables. And yet this was a good enough study it was in the textbook.

On the other side are economists who say something along the lines that economics is more about construction of logic and constraints that best model human behavior and resources that we can then derive concepts from. I agree with this side more. The model from which virtually all other economic models derive from is like this, supply and demand. That model is basically about constraints and logic.

(CNN)During a conversation with David Letterman on his new Netflix program, former President Barack Obama issued a stern warning for the current commander in chief: "One of the things that Michelle figured out, in some ways faster than I did, was part of your ability to lead the country doesn't have to do with legislation, doesn't have to do with regulations, it has to do with shaping attitudes, shaping culture, increasing awareness."

Yeah increasing awareness that you're a fucking cuck and that Trump has already completely overshadowed your entire presidency by having a pair instead of letting his wife tell him to act like a little bitch.

Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
The thing I am most impressed by is that he hasn't bent to media or ctrl-left social justice pressure. Just about all Republicans would, except perhaps one like Cruz. But even then I'm so impressed by this that even though I voted for Cruz over Trump, I think Trump is doing better than Cruz would.

My #2 is North Korea. Watching this dance play out piece by piece has been awesome. I have been super impressed with his strategy and all the tactics he has been using to make that strategy work. We're going to look back at this as Trump literally being the man who solved the North Korea problem. Several months back I was saying that with some hesitance, but given how much real movement on the ground there has been so far, I say it with full confidence now.

ISIS is an easy #3. It went from gangbusters under Obama to virtually finished after a year of Trump allowing Mattis to do what Mattis wants to do.

His attention to rational expectations is #4. Given how much I care about this, it's strange that it's only #4, but that shows how great the ones above it are. Rational expectations is one of the most important concepts in economics, and it is my estimation that Trump understands it better than most economists. Essentially Trump is making the world believe the future will be better, which makes the people behave like the future will be better, which means that current behavior is better since people adjust for future expectations in current behavior, which is what ends up making the future better.

#5 is the many regulation cuts behind the scenes. After he dutifully morning tweets out something that gets the media and bobbleheads to reeeeeeee, he then usually cuts restrictions on hardworking people behind the scenes, and only those who pay attention to things that matter notice.

I'll stop here.

1. This requires that you like his policies in the first place. But still, giving him credit for standing his ground seems reasonable.

2. What do you think has happened/is happening with N. Korea because of Trump?

3. My understanding is ISIS was already shrinking, but I already responded to this with Banana so nm.

4. You think his confident outlook on the economy helps the economy. Also seems reasonable.

5. You're right the cutting of regs doesn't get talked about by the left, except derisively. I think the objection is that there's a trade-off between what is good for business and what is there to protect people from unfettered business practices.

Yeah that's basically right. Because of this, there is debate among economists about what economics even should be about. For example, there is a big econometrician movement. I don't like it much because it attempts to do what you pointed out can't be done. Interesting to note, Nassim Taleb often discusses how econometricians gets their statistics wrong in the first place. So that's, like, a double negative. I think econometrics is very overused. On the econometric paper I replicated for a class, I felt like the "results" boiled down to data dredging and perhaps overfitting and that the conclusion was easily wrong because of unknown confounding variables. And yet this was a good enough study it was in the textbook.

On the other side are economists who say something along the lines that economics is more about construction of logic and constraints that best model human behavior and resources that we can then derive concepts from. I agree with this side more. The model from which virtually all other economic models derive from is like this, supply and demand. That model is basically about constraints and logic.

Here's a good way of looking at it.

The best models in economics are VERY clear about the ceteris paribus effects of the minimum wage. So, what have the studies shown? Um, well, um, the results are mixed. In fact, certain economists who study it a ton and have an opinion on it curiously seem to find their studies showing the results they want. I'm not suggesting any foul play, but pointing out how experimental economics is very, very hard.

In my estimation, we will never know what the data say about the minimum wage. There are just too many confounding variables. Yet, the logic behind the ceteris paribus effects of the minimum wage are very clear and undisputed by economists.

Yeah increasing awareness that you're a fucking cuck and that Trump has already completely overshadowed your entire presidency by having a pair instead of letting his wife tell him to act like a little bitch.

If it was a Republican, or hell anybody other than Obama, who said this, the entire country would be outraged. It has been common knowledge for a long time that the previous presidents SHUT THE FUCK UP about the current president. That changed the second Blumpf won.

He truly sees himself as some kind of transformative figure that can influence world events merely with his presence. For example, he seems to have truly believed that he could heal American-Arab relations just by being elected.

Didn't Tversky and Khaneman basically blow up some economic ideas with research in psychology? I don't remember the details, but I thought it had to do with people not being able to be rational even if they tried (or something like that). Something about them making poor decisions about risk/reward depending on how the question was framed.

I could have that wrong though. It might be someone else or something else.

You are thinking of something that happened. I'd want to look at the exact studies before having an opinion, but I have some knowledge of what you're referring to.

"Blow up" is more or less right. However, I think that came due to using different definitions. Economists like Gary Becker (and me though I am not an economist) describe those "irrational behavior" results as still presenting the subjects acting according to preferences. The issue is that because of type of input, the preferences can change to something funky.

What BananaStand said the other day about how people change driving speed based on time of day and quantity of drivers on the road might be in part an example of this. Economists out of the Chicago school would say those drivers are acting rationally because even though their preferences changed based on input changes, they are still acting along with what they prefer at that point in time. The "irrationalist" framework doesn't really even acknowledge that idea; instead it redefines "rational" as something along the lines of a certain type of preference and "irrational" as a different type of preference.

The irrationalist stuff probably has a lot of value with how it shows how preferences change. But at least according to my professor who was very fair to the irrationalist stuff, it doesn't change the models.

Interesting to note, Nassim Taleb often discusses how econometricians gets their statistics wrong in the first place.

This relates to my point about a) not having enough information. If there's not enough data to devise a model that gets its basic assumptions about parametrization right, your model is destined to fail.

Stats nerd alert: Taleb's argument was that making assumptions about economic models being normally-distributed when they were better described as fat-tailed is the core flaw of many economic theories, but his is just a specific example of the general principle that if you don't parametrize your model properly, you're fucked - an interesting side note is that the American Statistical Association has said the same thing recently about using p-values in scientific research, or more to the point, using them wrongly)

No one here is giving Trump sole credit for the stock market (another of your seemingly endless string of strawmen). However, the rise started the day he was elected and has not stopped in over a year while he has been president. That's a strong indicator that his election and policies are a primary cause, though they are obviously not the only cause.

Really? Well, goddamn

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

In 2017, the record was set for the most record-high days for the stock market in a calendar year. #winning #maga #trump2020

Must have gotten the wrong impression from this post then

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

However, the rise started the day he was elected and has not stopped in over a year while he has been president. That's a strong indicator that his election and policies are a primary cause, though they are obviously not the only cause.

The thing is, you/we are all arguing over nonsense. The democrats are built to lose, running on platitudes and cliches. The republicans basically can only fuck themselves up at this point a la roy Moore in order to lose, but democrats are not giving any semblance fight. Shooting themselves in the foot over and over again. They are playing to lose and they love it. The FISA thing is just the latest line of "golly gee, we HAVE to cave in to whatever dear leader wants, fuck the public" which indicates just how spineless of a bunch they are

But it's all by design. I'd say this should mark the death of that one party system, since that is what you guys have even though you won't admit it in a million years; republican right (give me money, corporations) and republican-light democrats (we care about the average man! but give me money, corporations). You have no actual left wing. I just want to see now how long that game can continue, and how long until suzanne collins' "prophecies" come true

Your spot in the world is being tarnished right now in a bizarre yet grandiose spectacle, and the whole world is tuned in. Comical, yet sad at the same time. Maybe it's time to brush up on mandarin and that damned Cyrillic alphabet

The thing is, you/we are all arguing over nonsense. The democrats are built to lose, running on platitudes and cliches. The republicans basically can only fuck themselves up at this point a la roy Moore in order to lose, but democrats are not giving any semblance fight. Shooting themselves in the foot over and over again. They are playing to lose and they love it. The FISA thing is just the latest line of "golly gee, we HAVE to cave in to whatever dear leader wants, fuck the public" which indicates just how spineless of a bunch they are

But it's all by design. I'd say this should mark the death of that one party system, since that is what you guys have even though you won't admit it in a million years; republican right (give me money, corporations) and republican-light democrats (we care about the average man! but give me money, corporations). You have no actual left wing. I just want to see now how long that game can continue, and how long until suzanne collins' "prophecies" come true

Your spot in the world is being tarnished right now in a bizarre yet grandiose spectacle, and the whole world is tuned in. Comical, yet sad at the same time. Maybe it's time to brush up on mandarin and that damned Cyrillic alphabet

We'll call occupation a draw.
How old is/are your wife/girlfriend/girlfriends?
How much is your car worth?
How much is your house worth?
Do you own it?
And the tiebreaker if it's still a draw...
How big are your dicks?

We'll call occupation a draw.
How old is/are your wife/girlfriend/girlfriends?
How much is your car worth?
How much is your house worth?
Do you own it?
And the tiebreaker if it's still a draw...
How big are your dicks?

It's not a competition, and we're not sending you dick pics (well, at least I'm not).

The Wall Street Journal stated falsely that I said to them “I have a good relationship with Kim Jong Un” (of N. Korea). Obviously I didn’t say that. I said “I’d have a good relationship with Kim Jong Un,” a big difference. Fortunately we now record conversations with reporters...

2. What do you think has happened/is happening with N. Korea because of Trump?

The short of it is Trump has been trying to get Xi of China on his side from the beginning, while also getting other big players into his strategy. Trump put a lot of work into showing Xi respect and framing North Korea as something Xi wants to and can get done but if Xi doesn't Trump will. Trump turned himself into Kim, so to speak, by using similar type of escalating rhetoric. He has shown the world he does what Mattis thinks is best when it comes to the military at least enough of the time that nobody knows who is in charge on this issue. This point was something we covered in my game theory class as it related to Khrushchev and the Politburo. Not knowing who was in charge put Kennedy and his generals in a worse spot strategically. Trump has massaged Xi with trade negotiations as well. That all is sort of stage setting, the real meat is in what has been happening recently.

The strategy that the tactics above gear towards is to wage economic war against Kim. Recently, that has come by in a big way. Tons of different new sanctions have been put in place, and the most important ones, oil, are getting restricted a significant amount. Then shortly after we start hearing about these oil restrictions, we hear that Kim has agreed to talks with South Korea. Then SK says Trump was the one who got that done.

We're winning this thing. If you saw me talking about this several months ago I was praising how smartly Kim's regime has been acting and that he might have a better strategic position than Trump does. That was related to Trump being constrained more than Kim. But man was I wrong. Kim going to SK isn't the end, it's not even close. But it is Kim showing some bend to Trump (and Xi and others), though it is Kim bending in a very smart way because it allows him to get SK to agree to something Trump doesn't want.

3. My understanding is ISIS was already shrinking, but I already responded to this with Banana so nm.

If it did shrink at the tail of Obama's term, it was small shrinkage and it came after it grew significantly. The shrinkage under Trump has been about as rapid as Trump's big talk during the campaign said it would be.

There is evidence that Obama didn't take ISIS seriously. There is also evidence (leaked audio) of Secretary of State Kerry implying that they viewed ISIS as a tool against Assad. I think they made a pigsty of it and Trump came in and cleaned up.

5. You're right the cutting of regs doesn't get talked about by the left, except derisively. I think the objection is that there's a trade-off between what is good for business and what is there to protect people from unfettered business practices.

Especially since probably the best way to deter bad practice in business is to let the market function the way it normally does, anybody who doesn't like regulation cuts should point out the exact cuts and provide explanation for why keeping them makes people better off.

A different way of viewing this is that regulations keep bloating over time. Every day, every month, every year, every decade, there are many more regulations than before. Where's the evidence that shows that we're getting safer because of this?

Stock prices represent the economy as a whole very closely. The distinction between Wall Street and Main Street that is often talked about isn't quite real. For example, if a Trump election causes a rally in Walmart stock prices, that rally is because investors think that demand for Walmart goods will go up, and that demand is about the same as what pushes up Joe and Sally's Corner Grocer too.

There are a lot of caveats to this, but that scenario is the usual and general one.

I put this in a confusion way and somebody could call me on it who knows better. So, let me clarify.

If there is an increase in demand for retail that includes anything from Walmart to Joe and Sally Corner Shop, one of the reflections is in the stock price of retailers. Most retailers are not traded publicly, but that does not mean that it is only the publicly traded ones that experience the gains. Stock exchanges are structured for an important purpose of acting as a good proxy for the movement in the economy.

There are literally idiots on Twitter who are saying he didn't say "I'd" in the audio. These people would argue with a fucking brick wall. They cannot be saved. There is no cure.

Tape sounds pretty ambiguous to me. Probably someone is running it through a voice analyzer right now.

The funny part is either way it makes no sense. If he say "I do" that's obviously a surprise. And if he said "I would" he never finished the thought by saying, e.g., "...if we ever met."

So basically Trump's complaint is that his nonsense was mistaken for slightly different nonsense.

Also the reporter's follow-up question makes it clear he thought Trump said "I do" and Trump either never caught on to that or didn't feel it was worth clarifying what he'd actually said. He just rambled on about conversations he may or may not have had and he wasn't going to talk about.

I hope they publish more Trump tapes. I love how he takes 15 seconds to speak a 5 second sentence, and adds in superfluous information like "Abe...of Japan" , and "Un...of North Korea" as if people wouldn't otherwise know who he's talking about. Not that senility is funny, but it's funny how his supporters will keep denying it no matter how much evidence there is.

Also lol at WP for insisting he said "I do". Why fucking entertain the guy? Just say, "we thought you said x but if you insist you said y, then maybe we misheard you. Sorry dude, shit happens." and leave him looking like Angry Grandpa.

Millions of conservatives and libertarians think there is only one party. A prominent conservative website refers to it exclusively as the Uniparty.

Agreed.

One thing that Trump did, whether intentional or not, was provide an outlet for conservatives who are not generally supportive of the GOP, which is where the term alt-right originated from before it was hijacked.

One thing that Trump did, whether intentional or not, was provide an outlet for conservatives who are not generally supportive of the GOP, which is where the term alt-right originated from before it was hijacked.

Yep.

Speaking of monikers the ctrl-left and del-media fabricated out of a bedtime story, isn't it cool how one of those monikers (fake news) has completely and utterly backfired? Fake News is nearly synonymous with CNN by now.

Tape sounds pretty ambiguous to me. Probably someone is running it through a voice analyzer right now.

Do they not teach context clues where you live or what?

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

The funny part is either way it makes no sense. If he say "I do" that's obviously a surprise. And if he said "I would" he never finished the thought by saying, e.g., "...if we ever met."

So basically Trump's complaint is that his nonsense was mistaken for slightly different nonsense.

Also the reporter's follow-up question makes it clear he thought Trump said "I do" and Trump either never caught on to that or didn't feel it was worth clarifying what he'd actually said. He just rambled on about conversations he may or may not have had and he wasn't going to talk about.

WSJ posted fake news and got their souls crushed on it. It's not the first time this has happened with a major media outlet. Or the second. Or the third. Or the 20th.

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

I hope they publish more Trump tapes. I love how he takes 15 seconds to speak a 5 second sentence, and adds in superfluous information like "Abe...of Japan" , and "Un...of North Korea" as if people wouldn't otherwise know who he's talking about. Not that senility is funny, but it's funny how his supporters will keep denying it no matter how much evidence there is.

It's not senility; he's spoken like that for decades, and it's intentional.

On the X of Y topic, if he didn't specify, then fuck knows how the media would try to spin his words to mean other people than who he's talking about.

Speaking of monikers the ctrl-left and del-media fabricated out of a bedtime story, isn't it cool how one of those monikers (fake news) has completely and utterly backfired? Fake News is nearly synonymous with CNN by now.

That's something I've only recently realized that most people seem not to know: "Fake news" was started by the left to try to attack Trump's campaign.

There is evidence that Obama didn't take ISIS seriously. There is also evidence (leaked audio) of Secretary of State Kerry implying that they viewed ISIS as a tool against Assad. I think they made a pigsty of it and Trump came in and cleaned up.

I'd like to note how Trump cleaned this up.

By delegating. Like Johnson and his Vietnam quagmire, Obama was a notorious micromanager. As we all know, that is a really bad thing you can do as a manager, and Trump fixed that with his excellent expertise as a successful manager. He gives his military the strategy and lets THEM figure out how to implement it the best they can. He does this because he is the expert manager and they are the expert militarists.

That's something I've only recently realized that most people seem not to know: "Fake news" was started by the left to try to attack Trump's campaign.

It's funny that "fake news" wouldn't have backfired if CNN and the rest of the del-media weren't in fact fake news. But since they lie about almost everything, people started noticing once the frame of how to view media became "fake news".

I especially like that it is quite likely that Trump's team was planting fake stories. Some insiders have said it happens and Trump himself alluded to it when he said "the leaks are real, the news is fake". He's probably referring to barium meals planted to weed out leakers that also helped discredit the del-media. Granted we don't know for certain about this, but it appears to probably be the case.

This seems a little short-sighted by Trump. I'm sure he's loving that he can spike the football. And there is definitely value in making the media look biased and retarded. But I think he could have done it without broadcasting the fact that he's recording shit.

to me, looks like the better play would be for the audio to come from some other source. A reporter leaking or something.

Cuz now, next time he says "shithole" or something similar and tries to deny it, the press can just say "pull the tape!"

I especially like that it is quite likely that Trump's team was planting fake stories. Some insiders have said it happens and Trump himself alluded to it when he said "the leaks are real, the news is fake". He's probably referring to barium meals planted to weed out leakers that also helped discredit the del-media. Granted we don't know for certain about this, but it appears to probably be the case.

Everything indicates that's the case, but we probably won't ever know for sure.